Kanhyalal Upadhyay vs The State Of Telangana, Through Its ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 3862 Tel

Telangana High Court

Kanhyalal Upadhyay vs The State Of Telangana, Through Its ... on 12 June, 2025

      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

            WRIT PETITION No.6234 of 2016

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and

Registration for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the

entire material on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

Government has granted lease to the father of the

petitioners and the father of respondent Nos.3 to 6, who

are brothers and they are lessees of the land in plot

bearing No.1.37 in Sy.No.127/1 with 233.33 Sq.yards in

Agricultural Market Committee popularly known as

"Mahboob Mansion" situated at Malakpet, Hyderabad.

After the demise of the father of the petitioners and father

of respondent Nos.3 to 6, the petitioners and respondent

Nos.3 to 6 executed memorandum of understanding on

01.10.2015 between them for partitioning the suit

schedule property and the same was presented before the

Registering Authority. After presenting the document,

SK, J

respondent No.2 issued proceedings vide letter

No.5713/Adjudication/2015, dated 14.11.2015 and

informed the petitioner No.1 that the said memorandum

of understanding is treated as conveyance deed falling

under Article 20 to Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act,

1899. In fact, the registered document was not

mentioned by the registering authority and without

considering the ingredients of the conveyance deed as per

the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as well as Section 54 of the

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as arbitrary and illegal,

requested to direct the respondent-authorities to register

the document presented by the petitioners as well as

respondent Nos.3 to 6.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Black

Pearl Hotels (Pvt) Ltd v.M/s. Planet M. Retail Ltd.1

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Stamps and Registration fairly contended that

AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 1974

SK, J

the documents presented by the petitioners and the

respondent Nos.3 to 6 shall not come under Article 20 to

Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and

requested to pass appropriate orders as per law.

5. In view of the submissions made by both sides, the

writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned

letter No.5713/Adjudication/2015, dated 14.11.2015 and

the respondent-authorities are directed to register the

documents as per the memorandum of understanding

between the petitioners and respondent Nos.3 to 6. No

costs.

6. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ

petition shall stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH

Dated: 12.06.2025 EDS